学生道德理想的心理特点

在近几十年来对青年学生道德理想的研究中,苏联心理学积累了有关其内容、结构,机能、年龄特点及其形成规律的丰富科学资科。在马列主义学说基础上,这一问题的范畴结构得到根本的革新和完善。现已查明了在俄国十月社会主义革命之后发生的社会经济变化影响下,成长中一代道德理想发展的基本趋势和倾向。人们研究了主要学习科目和一些教育措施在道德理想形成中的作用;查明了道德理想与个性的最重要成分和特征的关系,以及道德理想对学生行为的调节机能。研究道德理想的方法也在理解道德理想的新的理论概念基础上得到了完善。     

社会心理学论流行

一、什么是流行在我们的社会里,差不多在每个时期,都有时髦的服装、歌曲、体育、语言等等。所谓流行现象就是某种事物由于被人们采用而逐渐推广,生根以至消灭的一个过程。而这些事物能否成为流行现象,则取决于它能否满足下述的两个方面的条件:即流行项目的特点和它的普及现象。1.流行的特点所谓流行现象是从我们身上穿的衣服、装饰、化装、直至音乐、绘画、文学、科学、思想(把这些称作流行项目)为止,在生活的一切领域都能看到的,而且它们都是在某种意义上给予人们的所谓“新奇”“珍贵”的印象。这就是说,作为流行的     

少年对体育活动态度的心理特点

一般说来,体育活动是和发展一定的身体素质相联系的。它要求少年保持自己的体育锻炼,并普遍提高身体训练的水平。同时,体育活动还能发展一些最重要的个性心理品质,其中不仅有耐力、力量、速度和动作的灵活性、意志、勇敢、果断、顽强,而且还有创造性、集体主义、坚定的目的性。正因为如此,体育活动在少年期具有特别重要的作用和意义。需要把它作为方向性的建设来抓。     

给智力重新下定义

日本东京有一个特别的音乐教学大纲,规定儿童在6岁时用小提琴演奏维瓦尔第协奏曲,在10岁时演奏莫扎特作品,这时他们都还不知怎样读谱呢。在密克罗内西亚的加罗林群岛,一位帕罗威族小男孩,深夜解缆出海,应用他了解的关于波浪、风向和星星的知识,仅靠头脑中的地图进行观察,就可到达几百个小岛中的任何一个岛上。在波士顿,一个正在矫正阅读障碍的少年,竟编制了利用报上公布     

Transfer of matching-to-figure samples in the pigeon

Three pigeons were trained on a modified six-key matching-to-sample procedure. The third peck on the figure-sample key (which presented a bird, hand, face, beetle, rabbit, fish, flower, or red hue, as the sample) lighted only one comparison key. Every three additional pecks on the sample lighted another comparison key, up to a maximum of five keys. Pecks on keys of matching figures produced grain. Pecks on nonmatching keys (mismatches) turned off all lights on the comparison keys and repeated the trial. Three figures were used during acquisition. The birds learned to peck each sample until the matching comparison stimulus appeared on one of three comparison stimulus keys, and then to peck that key. Later, five novel stimuli, employed as both sample and comparison stimuli, and two additional matching keys were added. Each bird showed matching transfer to the novel samples. The data suggest that the birds may have learned the concept of figure matching rather than a series of two-component chains or discrete five-key discriminations.     

Some effects of interreinforcement time upon choice

Pigeons' responses were reinforced on two identical and concurrently available chain variable-interval-schedules. Unlike the typical concurrent chains procedure, both links were operative throughout, thus producing three types of concurrency: (1) concurrent initial links; (2) concurrent initial and terminal links; (3) concurrent terminal links. Choice proportions in each of these three states suggested that the pigeons were sensitive to momentary likelihoods of reinforcement: choice proportions for a schedule were higher when the schedule had been operative for some time, resulting in a higher probability of reinforcement. The study also showed that the relative rates of responding did not match the relative rates of reinforcement in any of the three states of concurrency. Instead, the choice proportions in both the concurrent initial and in the concurrent terminal links were intermediate between the scheduled and the obtained relative rates of reinforcement, while the choice proportions for a terminal link concurrent with an initial link consistently overmatched the relative interreinforcement times (and were typically 1.00). These data indicate that an accurate characterization of choice may not be obtained by considering only the relative interreinforcement interval where one interreinforcement interval is segmented into a chain. Instead, the organism's choice for a schedule will be substantially lowered by the chaining operation.     

Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer

In Experiment 1, matching of relative response rates to relative rates of reinforcement was obtained in concurrent variable-interval schedules when the absolute values of the two concurrent variable-interval schedules varied from 6 sec and 12 sec to 600 sec and 1200 sec. Increases in the duration of the changeover delay, however, produced decreases in the relative response rates and, consequently, some deviation from matching. In Experiment 2, matching of relative response rates to the relative duration of the reinforcer failed to occur when the equal variable-interval schedules arranging access to the two different reinforcer durations (1.5 and 6 sec) were varied in size from concurrent variable-interval 10-sec schedules to concurrent variable-interval 600-sec schedules.     

Choice for periodic schedules of reinforcement

Pigeons' responses in the presence of two concurrently available (initial-link) stimuli produced one of two different (terminal-link) stimuli according to identical but independent variable-interval schedules. Responding in the mutually exclusive terminal links was reinforced with food according to fixed-ratio schedules for six pigeons and according to fixed-interval schedules for two pigeons. None of the pigeons matched the proportion of (choice) responses in the initial links to the proportion of the rates of reinforcement obtained during the terminal links. Instead, as the values of each of the terminal-link schedules were increased by a constant amount, the choice proportions for the stimulus associated with the smaller of the two values increased, even though the relative rates of reinforcement during the terminal links decreased. These results are incompatible with those from previous studies with aperiodic (variable-interval or variable-ratio) schedules. The present results do suggest, however, that in transforming aperiodic schedules into their periodic equivalents, it may be necessary to consider the size of the smallest interreinforcement interval comprising the terminal-link schedules.     

黑格尔逻辑学中的矛盾和总体

这是加罗第最近在克雷蒙-惠朗大学的一篇报告。加罗第近几年来把黑格尔哲学的遺产的价值捧得很高,他指責斯大林所犯的“哲学錯誤”之一,就是拋弃了黑格尔的遺产。1962年,他发表四百多頁的一本著作《上帝已經死了》,对黑格尔哲学作出了他自己的分析。在这里譯出的这篇文章中,他所分析的黑格尔邏輯学中的“矛盾”和“总体”的問题,就是“二”和“一”的問題。加罗第說,黑格尔哲学的体系以总体为中心范畴,这个体系始于絕对的总体,又以絕对的总体告終,所以是思辨的、唯心主义的,是一种神学的世界观。至于以矛盾为中心范畴的黑格尔的方法,則只要把它唯物主义地顛倒过来,就具有科学价值,因为这是經现代各门科学发展的成果所証明的辯証法。加罗第用了物理学、生物学和美学上的一些例子,駁斥了黑格尔的带有神学性质的总体概念,认为矛盾不是总体的环节,反之,总体乃是矛盾的环节。他主张对正在产生的总体而言,矛盾是第一性的,但他认为用辯証法的矛盾处理問題的目的,在于找到具体生动的和諧,这也就是辯証法的最大的优越性。加罗第借口冲破“教条主义”,借口反对辯証唯物主义給科学研究规定各种“清规戒律”,号召不怕不断地对科学結論作最根本的修正,却不肯定辯証唯物主义的基本规律的永远普遍有效的真理。他把相对說成是絕对的,而排斥了相对之中的絕对的东西。同时他强調辯証法是自由的內在规律和創造的內在规律。这种創造的自由,就是通过对事物之間的矛盾的处理而求得一个新的协調的总体。所以,加罗第在本文中所鼓吹的,实质上乃是主观主义和詭辯論,是矛盾調和論。